From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 02:11:40 -0500 From: Paul Jackson Subject: Re: Couple of questions about mempolicy rebinding Message-Id: <20080320021140.93a235dc.pj@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <1205786207.5297.30.camel@localhost> References: <200803122118.03942.ak@suse.de> <1205437802.5300.69.camel@localhost> <1205786207.5297.30.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Lee Schermerhorn Cc: rientjes@google.com, ak@suse.de, clameter@sgi.com, cpw@sgi.com, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Lee wrote: > 1) In __mpol_copy(): when the "current_cpuset_is_being_rebound", why do > we rebind the old policy policy and then copy it to the new? Seems like > the old policy will get rebound in due time if, indeed, it needs to be > rebound. I don't see any usage now, where it won't, but this seems less > general than just rebinding the new copy. E.g., the old mempolicy being > copied may be a context-free policy that shouln't be rebound. I think > we should at least add a comment to warn future callers. Comments? Sorry for the delay responding. You're probably right; I'm not sure. I have no record nor recollection of why I rebound the old policy before copying, instead of rebinding the new policy after copying. I suspect this might be a case of "shoot everything in sight, and hope I get them all." Most code that I write in that state of mind eventually gets fixed, to be more precise, once someone has a better understanding. Looks like this is that time. I'd be more than comfortable you changing this to copy first and then only rebind the new policy. -- I won't rest till it's the best ... Programmer, Linux Scalability Paul Jackson 1.940.382.4214 -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org